About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
and lucid enough to get his miranda rights read to him, also thoughts he shot himself through the neck, that's been really brought into question now, as an eyewitness there to help take him down, looks like a cut or maybe something exploded, a shrapnel cut, those that the boston marathon, those that suffered during the explosion. he said i'm motivated by religion, that religion being islamic extremism or islam. he went on to say i have no outside ties. i'm not part of a larger group. isn't that convenient. >>steve: both brothers went to a mosque in cambridge. it was the older brother. clearly the younger brother was following the older brother in life in so many different ways. we told you a little bit yesterday about some of the outbursts the older brother had at the mosque in cambridge. for instance, back in november where they were talking about it was okay for muslims to celebrate american holidays like thanksgiving and the 4th of july and tamerlan, the older brother, stood up and argued. then in january there was a praise for martin luther king jr. and he got up and called someone a hyp
decided not to read him miranda rights. he's not getting that. feds are envoking an exception to the rule and already the american civil liberties is slamming that decision . we must not waiver from the tried and true judicial system. we'll break down the complicated legal issuings. criminal defense attorney heather hanson is wherulse. >> you catch somebody who might have left a bomb somewhere . you want to keep them safe and question them right now for the public safety. >> that times passed hasn't it. >> the law was in 1984 . that is what it at that time. since then specifically after the times square bombing in 2010, >> attempted. >> the f.b.i. put out a memo that addresses the terrorist cases that they could expand the time in which they can question a suspect without reading them their rights. the question is how long of a time is there. we don't know the answer. >> was it not the letter of the law. but was it the intent of the law to stop an imminent threat against the people. for instance times square bomber had blown something out there and had blown something that the authorities
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)